This opinion piece, written by a supporter of Apple's new iPad, makes some interesting points.  However, in my mind his arguments fall a bit flat.  On the other hand, this piece is much more realistic. 

In fact, I'm going to copy-and-paste a chunk of that second piece: the section where he lists what a potentially paradigm-shifting device like the iPad needs.

"As I see it, many of these “BUT I’M AN EXPERT” situations can be resolved by making just a few key modifications:

1. A managed way of putting processes in the background. New Worlders are benefiting already from the improved performance and battery life provided by the inability to run a task in the background. Meanwhile, Old Worlders are tearing their hair out. I CAN’T MULTITASK, right? It seems like there has to be a reasonable middle ground. Maybe processes can petition the OS for background time. Maybe a user can “opt-in” to background processes. I don’t know. But it seems like there must be an in-between that doesn’t sacrifice what we’ve gained for some of the flexibility we’re used to.

2. A way of sharing data with other devices. New World devices are easy to learn and highly usable because they do not expose the filesystem to users and they are “data islands”. We are no longer working with “files” but we are still working with data blobs that it would be valuable to be able to exchange with each other. Perhaps the network wins here. Perhaps flash drives that we never see the contents of. The Newton was, to my knowledge, the first generally available device where you could just say “put this app and all data I’ve created with it on this removable card” without ever once seeing a file or a folder. Its sizable Achilles’ Heel was that only other Newtons understood the data format.

3. A way of sharing data between applications. Something like the clipboard, but bigger. This is not a filesystem, but a way of saying “bring this data object from this app to this app”. I’ve made this painting in my painting app, and now I want to bring it over here to crop it and apply filters."

...and that's it.  I would argue that Apple is well aware that these things are missing, and is waiting for a conveninent time to pull them out of the Apple hat to show everyone what geniuses they are.  But in the meantime, they are perfectly happy to sell the early adopters a device that is incomplete because Apple WANTS it to be --not because it has to be.  That bothers me. 

The world already knows how to accomplish the tasks above -- even on a tablet.  And some solutions are simple: build in a USB port or two.  Create a networking app.  Would the inclusion of these things have ruined the device?  I don't think so.

Both these ope-eds highlight the fact that, in essence, Apple has chosen to sacrifice freedom for security in its devices.  More cynically, one could easily argue that they make these decisions more for profit than for security: Apple owns an iPhone/iPad system that says, "If Apple isn't getting a cut of the profit from your program or peripheral, we won't allow it on our device."  Thankfully, there will always be other manufacturers that take an opposite approach.  But let's hope Apple's current approach isn't the only vision of the future that wins (and let's hope the company doesn't expand this philosophy to MacBooks and iMacs). 

Isn't it strange that we are discussing Apple as the company that espouses the closed-device model?  Didn't Microsoft get everyone up in arms by trying to force people to use Internet Explorer with Windows?  Isn't that exactly what Apple is doing by not allowing ANY non-Apple-approved apps to be installed on their devices?  Aren't users being forced to browse with Safari?  Why is this not OK when Microsoft does it, but totally fine -- even "the future of computing" -- when Apple does it? 

[The iPad doesn't allow Flash.  Steve Jobs says that Flash is buggy, and will be replaced with HTML5.  What he doesn't mention is that Flash-based sites like Hulu cut into iTunes sales by offering free TV content.]  

The first blog entry I linked to talks about a future that the Generation 1 iPad hasn't even called into existence.  At this point, the iPad is totally closed outside of the App Store and iTunes.  No networking.  No data transfer slots.  And no amount of psychobabble about the future can mask that this device is missing some basic features that would actually make it useful.  Transferring data between applications is useful.  Sharing data with other devices easily and wireless-ly is useful.  Multitasking is useful.  Building in these capabilities might make the iPad less secure.  It would also work to deny Apply their very closed (and thus very lucrative) ecosystem. 

But until the iPad can do these things, it is not particularly useful.  Once it can do those things, I envision houses with mounted iPads as control panels for home security systems, lighting, appliance control, and the like.  As an example, I'd love to be able to preheat my oven from my driveway using an iPad.  I'd rather perform those taks on an iPad than a laptop.  In fact, I can think of many handy uses for a device with this form factor...if the current iteration wasn't deliberately hamstrung to prevent those uses from becoming reality.  Wake me when we get there.   
 

Apple released a new toy  last week: the horribly-named (and perhaps illegally-named) iPad.  Intended to bridge the gap between PCs and smartphones, the iPad is a pretty device that could help to inject life into the tablet sector.  OP's opinion on the iPad is that it is basically an e-reader with some other bells and whistles -- but one that doesn't demonstrate its usefulness.  At least, not yet.

You've really got to hand it to Steve Jobs: Apple is perhaps the best-marketed brand  in the world.  There are two 'dirty secrets' of Apple's success.  The first is that they aren't really constantly innovating completely new pieces of tech.  The second is that their true uniqueness lies not in their hardware, but in their software.  

Contrary to popular belief, Apple is not a company that is constantly cranking out never-before-seen, paradigm-shifting technology. Rather, the company keeps its ears to the ground, licensing or buying up outright good ideas, combines them into a unique, pretty package that is easily mastered, and voila!  The new hotness comes into being, thanks to clever packaging and marketing.  

A perfect example of Apple's product mojo is the iPod.  It was not the first digital music player on the market; it probably isn't the best digital music player on the market; and as this article  demonstrates, the majority of the iPod's design actually came from outside companies.  Apple's true innovation was iTunes...which, by the way, has never been universally-regarded as the best online media vendor.  With the iPod, Apple mated a very easy-to-use device with an easy-to-use store and found the best price point to sell at.

The same could be said for the iPhone: the tech-changing device is manufactured in a Chinese factory by Hon Hai Corporation, and incorporates decades-old Apple tech  in a modern package.  The iPhone was not the first smartphone.  It wasn't the first slab phone.  It was not the first phone to sync with a computer, nor was it the first with an ecosystem of native applications, nor was it the first with a large group of dedicated software developers.   It was not the first touchscreen phone, nor did Apple invent multitouch (though they do own several patents in this area).  The iPhone home screen layout is a prettier version of the home screen layout of a Palm Treo.  In other words, aside from internal memory that has reached 32 GB, Apple's crown jewel doesn't possess a single original hardware or OS concept.  

But the software is a different story.  I'm speaking in particular about the App Store, and the ecosystem created to support it.  The App Store is the innovation that led to the iPhone revolutionizing the mobile device industry.  Nobody had created such a sophisticated application ecosystem and mated it with such a cutting-edge device.  Nobody thought to do so -- and if they had, nobody executed it with such precision.  On top of that, Apple leveraged iTunes -- a vendor which so many millions of people were already familiar with buying music from -- to support the adoption of the iPhone.  All Apple had to do was mate the latest iPod (the iPod Touch) with a mediocre phone, create an App Store, and make sure the device played nice with existing Apple software...and a star was born.  

These facts take nothing away from the iPhone: it's the perfect evolution of the iPod.  What's interesting is that many phones have already caught or surpassed the iPhone's hardware.  The Motorola Droid and HTC Hero/Droid Eris are more customizable.  The droid has a nicer, bigger screen and better hardware.  The Palm Pre has the best OS of any mobile device.  The Google/HTC Nexus One is faster and utilizes a faster processor.  But none of the competition has an App Store like Apple's, or a virtual vendor the size of iTunes...and it is likely that none of them ever will.

The reason we discuss the iPod and iPhone so heavily in a blog post that is supposed to be about the new iPad is that these devices reveal a very disturbing trend among Apple products.  This trend has gone from being viewed as a mild annoyance to being downright crass exploitation of a feckless media and public.  For years, Apple has bilked consumers by releasing a new product that has gaping hardware and/or software holes, then released a replacement product in each subsequent year (or every two years) with updated features that fill these holes.  The iPod began with a greyscale screen, eventually added color, added exponentially more memory each year, and finally added video -- even though these features weren't new to other manufacturers.  

The iPhone was more blatant: the first iPhone couldn't operate on 3G networks, even though many phones of that era already had 3G connectivity.  The 3G iPhone was released just 2 years later, to much fanfare.  If RIM had released a new Blackberry and added a 3G version 2 years later, nobody would have paid much attention; in fact, RIM probably would have been ripped for not introducing a 3G model in the first place.  But this is Apple, so the rules are different.  Then Apple released the iPhone 3Gs, adding long-awaited features such as -- wait for it -- cut-and-paste, a landscape software keyboard, video recording, a GPS app from TomTom, a compass, etc.  You may have noticed that different mobile phones have already had many of these features for years.  But when you're Apple, adding these features in 2009 somehow generates media hype and consumer orgies of acquisition.  

Now, Apple's habit of under-delivering in first-generation products has reached crass new levels with the iPad.  The iPad lacks multitasking (as does the iPhone): you can't stream music and surf the Internet at the same time.  It lacks a camera for video conferencing or webchats.  It lacks Flash compatibility, so no Hulu or YouTube.  It doesn't even have USB ports or a removable battery.  It has no phone.  So basically, there's no reason to buy this thing...yet.

In essence, it's a placeholder product starving to be updated until it actually becomes useful.  Lo and behold, there's already leaking evidence that many of these updates are already in the works.  

So why put out an incomplete prototype?  Because when you're Apple, you can do this and people will buy it.  It's truly amazing.  It's hard to even hate them for it, because they don't hold a gun to anyone's head.  More power to them if people are chumps.

Anyway, the devil's advocate counter-argument says that Apple just released an e-reader with several additional features, and that this thing will slaughter Amazon's Kindle, Barnes and Noble's Nook and the rest with ease.  After all, Jobs believes that multi-use products are The Way and The Path.  And who wants a Kindle that only really does one thing, when they can get an iPad that does many more things starting at only $100 more than a Kindle DX?  It's actually a pretty compelling argument.  The iPad does color.  It does Internet.  It doesn't need a backlight.  You can view photos and watch movies.  Top that, Kindle!  

...only there are a few problems with this progression.  First of all, the iPad is too big to operate with one hand; it's a lot bigger -- and thus a lot heavier -- than the Kindle.  Second, e-Ink is a lot less strenuous on the eyes than an LCD screen: the Kindle reads like a real book.  Nobody should be staring at a computer screen at the same distance and length of time that one stares at a book.  Third, netbooks do a lot more than the iPad does for approximately the same amount of money...or less.  

Finally, isn't it safe to assume that Amazon is charging that much for the Kindle because they can?  If Apple can charge $499 for a entry-level iPad, it makes sense that Amazon would be able to drop the price on a device like the Kindle that is obviously lower-tech than the iPad.  A price tag of $300 for an updated Kindle DX and $100-150 for an entry-level Kindle seems even more appealing than today's offerings -- and probably more appealing than the iPad.    

Another counter-argument says that the iPad is a device for people who don't need a computer,  or who don't want to use a computer.  It's a consumer product for non-techies -- so don't complain about it not having PC-like features, because it's not supposed to be a PC.  The problem with that argument is that even if you use an iPad, you still have to use a PC to sync it with.  In fact, that's a problem with all of Apple's mobile devices: at some point, you have to plug them in to manage your media files, photos, etc.  Cloud computing is supposedly coming to iTunes, but for now it still relies on old-school syncing.  So much for the idea of replacing your home computer, then.  You'll still need one...and any computer can do everything the iPad does.   

Ultimately, the iPad has potential.  It might eventually be able to carve a new niche and market segment that Apple is visionary enough to take advantage of and develop.  Or it might go the way of Apple TV or the Newton.  Its final fate will depend on how the market evolves...and how the iPad evolves with it.    

This year is one of the few where I never posted a retrospective for the year gone by; as usual, you can mostly blame Facebook.  I suppose it's because 2009 was personally fulfilling, but a continued downer on a national and global scale.  So I'll stick with the personal stuff. 

My band launched its first album, played our first show, and began working on a second album.  I looked fruitlessly for a DC venue for us to put on a show, though that search is ongoing.  I managed to buy a lot of stuff that I wanted, including replacing my entire musical rig (bass, amp).  I went on some fun trips, including spending a week in the OBX at a beach house with friends made through kickball. 

This year will mark a very different approach: while last year was about spending, this year will be about saving.  I have no major purchases planned, aside from possibly purchasing a new printer and a true underwater Mp3 player.  I've curbed my comic book habit, switching mostly to trade paperbacks from cheaper sources.  I canceled DirecTV and joined Netflix after years of service because I'm not home often enough to make paying for TV worthwhile.  I will open additional savings accounts. 

It's way past time that I started living with more of an eye towards the future, and 2010 will hopefully allow me to do that as long as everything remains more or less constant.  This year I'm hopeful that less will be more.

In a recent comment left on an OP entry, a friend of ours asked, "A few months ago you were saying that the health care reform bill was too ambitious and should be pursued more incrementally. Now it's insufficiently liberal?"

The conversation he was referring to took place outside of this venue.  In it, I suggested that the Democratic health care plan was too large, and they should settle for incremental reform instead of trying to push every reform they could think of at once. 

Fast-forward to January 2010, and it looks like a slowed-down health care reform process is exactly what will happen. Obsidian Potency does not necessarily think that is a bad thing; the consequences of putting the pedal to the floor can be fatal.  It also seems clear that the Democrats hurt themselves in the eyes of voters by (over-)reaching for a massive health-care overhaul without including the primary items on the wish list of average Joes. Both recent polling and current events reinforce this view.  (For what it's worth, that second link is particularly interesting.)

Most legislators on both sides of the aisle agree that people shouldn't have to worry about going bankrupt if they suffer a serious accident or illness, so catastrophic health insurance is necessary.  Most agree that insurance companies should be allowed to compete across state lines.  Most agree that insurance companies should not be allowed to drop people (or astronomically raise health insurance premiums) due to pre-existing conditions.  Most agree on the idea of health-insurance exchanges (though there is considerable disagreement on what form they would take).  These areas would be a good place to start. 

Once these reforms had passed, these smaller legislative victories might make it possible for Congress to tackle the more controversial stuff.  As that second link makes clear (even from its conservative perspective), the idea of near-universal health coverage is not necessarily a political loser in and of itself.  In fact, Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's old Senate seat in Massachusetts in large part because Massachusetts already has a massive health care entitlement.  He was able to credibly campaign against a national plan because MA voters are happy with their massive state-run health care program.  Obviously, voters in Massachusetts like massive health care programs.  They simply voted in their own short-term self-interest.  

There's another issue with the current health care legislation: too much crap combined with too many broken promises.  You know how people say that if both sides are unhappy, then you've done a good job?  Well, that's not the case with the current legislation.  Much of it was shaped by concessions to various states and congressional districts, and pushed forward through back-room wheeling and dealing.  Very little has been transparent about it, and it has been sold horribly. 

The American people are no less blind now than they were when they elected Obama.  Most of them support health care reform, and a strong plurality support a single-payer system.  Obama supports these things as well.  However, most Americans do not support the current health care package that until recently was being rammed through Congress, and that's partly because they know crap when they see it.  There's no single-payer system that half of them wanted.  There's not enough competition.  Insurance is still uncomfortably linked to employment.  Since the Democrats have significant majorities in both houses, these failures to adhere to the desires of the American people cannot really be blamed on Republican opposition. 

This is not about whether the current plans are "too liberal" or "not liberal enough".  It's simply about giving the people what they want, as opposed to feeding them a dirt sandwich and calling it beef Wellington.  The Democrats need to make sure they stick to doing what they said they would do, rather than compromising to the point that they lose people's trust.  If they actually are doing what they said they would do, they need to do a better job of illustrating it. 

But we don't think they are.  OP feels that Democratic congressional leaders became too focused on the goal of passing health reform at any cost, while allowing the actual intricacies of the reform itself to fall by the wayside.  It seems eerily similar to a gambler that loses money at the horse track over time, yet keeps going back and trying different strategies to break even again by betting at the same track. 

This op-ed, from a conservative no less, highlights the ridiculousness of current events: "If 2008 did not represent some meaningful approval and affirmation of what the Democrats proposed to do by a majority of voters, what substance do protest votes in 2010 elections have? It is a cliche to say that elections have consequences, but they do. Something that must be more than a little frustrating for Democrats right now is that Obama and the leadership in Congress are doing pretty much exactly what they said they would do.[emphasis added]  We are now being told in effect that the majority is about to be punished for keeping their election promises, and the punishment is supposed to be coming from one of their most reliable core areas. It is as if voters in Alabama or Wyoming turned against Bush’s marginal tax cuts after having elected him because he promised to cut taxes."

True as the above quote may be, current Democratic leadership must avoid focusing on this reality.  Dwelling on voter fickleness is a sure path to Loserville.  Instead, they need to work on keeping their promises and being clear about their message.  If they don't the Republicans will grab the mantle of change, use it to win elections, lose it in short order...and the cycle will continue into the foreseeable future. 

This article from Slate says it all: last night's Massachusetts election says exactly what anyone wants it to say on any side.  Truth be told, we have no idea what it means. 

It pains me to write this, but I agree with about 80% of this op-ed critiquing Obama's first year.   His leadership style has been entirely too compromising so far; he needs to learn that you can't split the difference on EVERY issue.  

Say what you will about W (and believe me...I have), but he had people around him who were able to whip the party into line when necessary.  Obama doesn't seem to want to do that -- or he's afraid to alienate people.  Well, the problem is that people in the middle are noticing, so he's alienating them anyway.

The good news is that he still has 3 years to improve and get stuff done, assuming he doesn't lose Congress by then.  I'm hoping The Rob can convince me this is totally wrong...